1967 Supreme(AP) 82

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.JAGMOHAN REDDY, SAMBASIVA RAO
Gopisetti Kondiah - Appellant
Versus
Gunda Subbarayudu - Respondent
Decided On : 07-21-67

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14(1) AND 14(2) - SCOPE AND AMBIT - PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY HINDU FEMALE IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE - RESTRICTED ESTATE - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

In the Second Appeal, the plaintiff, Konda Parvathamma, was the widow of one Potharaju. Potharaju executed a will, Exhibit A-1 dated 25th December, 1918, a few days before his death. He died leaving him surviving his mother, Chellamma, and the plaintiff, his widow. After his death, the will was presented for registration on 5th February, 1919 by Chellamma. Under the terms of the will, the property bequeathed was to be divided between the mother and the wife after the wife attains majority; that after the mother's death, the property was to be enjoyed absolutely by the wife. There was also a provision for payment of debts by selling the properties. It may be stated that the property that fell to the share of Chellamma was gifted away under Exhibit B-3 dated 14th October, 1956, after the Hindu Succession Act came into force on the 17th June, 1956, to her brother's daughter's song, the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit. Parvathamma filed the suit for recovery of possession of 8 items of land in Kollipara of a total extent of Ac-1 -34 cents, two items of house site and 45 cents of land in Bommuvanipalem, alleging that the gift deed executed by Challamma in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was not binding on her. She impleaded defendants 3 and 4, as they are said to be in possession of items 9 and 10 of the plaint-schedule. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the items of property given to Chellamma were towards her maintenance and residence with rights of sale, gift, etc., in the same that the rights of Chellamma even otherwise were enlarged under the Hindu Succession Act, that even under the alleged will, Chellamma had absolute rights of sale, gift, etc., and that the testator under the alleged will had no disposing power to indicate the mode of succession after Chellamma's death, having had conferred an absolute right in Chellamma. They also put the plaintiff to the strict proof of the truth and validity of the will. In the Letters Patent Appeal, one Chinna Kondanna who died in 1918, left him surviving two wives. The first wife Vengamma had two sons, Subbaiah and China Obulapathi. Subbaiah had a son, Kondayya, who is the first plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the sons of China Obulapathi. The 6th plaintiff is the widow of China Obulapathi and mother of plaintiff 2 and 5. The 1st defendant in the suit, also Vangamma, was the second wife of Chinna Kondanna. After the death of China Kondanna in 1918, Kesamma, his mother, acting as the guardian of China Kondanna's minor sons, executed a maintenance deed, Exhibit-1 dated 2nd February, 1921, in favour of the 1st defendant, settling on her 18 cents of land and a house in Nandyal for her maintenance, she being the step-mother of the minors. Ever since then, the 1st defendant was in possession of these 18 cents of land and the house on 25th November, 1957 however she sold the house under Exhibit A-2 to the 2nd defendant, i.e., after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the alienation made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs after the life time of the 1st defendant. It was their case that the 1st defendant had only a life interest in the property settled on her under Exhibit A-1 and that, therefore, any alienation made by her is invalid beyond her life tune and that the plaintiffs, who are her step-sons, are entitled to the same. On the other hand, the defendants contended that by reasons of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the limited interest which the 1st defendant had in the property settled under Exhibit A-1, became an absolute interest.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the property was given to the 1st defendant in recognition of her pre-existing rights of maintenance and consequently, she became a full owner of the property settled on her, and that sub-section (2) of section 14 does not apply to this case. In that view, it allowed the second appeal, reversed the decree and judgment of the District Judge and restored that of the trial Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the property acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance is a restricted estate under section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether the terms of the instrument under which the property is acquired create a restricted estate?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a Hindu female acquires property in lieu of maintenance, and the terms of the instrument create a restricted estate, such an estate is not enlarged by section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court further held that the combined effect of sub-section (1) and (2) of section 14 is to enlarge the rights of a female under the Hindu law by conferring upon her absolute right, where she would have a limited estate or a widow's estate, while at the same time giving effect to the terms of the gift, will or any other instrument or of a decree or an award, in case of property acquired under the aforesaid instruments, in the same way as a male would acquire property under the general law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeals with costs.